Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 26

Hassan Mead (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was previously deleted around a year ago. The discussion can be seen here. A new article has been created that does show notability and I would like to be able to view the deleted revisions. This is a history-only undeletion request ~ Eóin (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. This guy isn't notable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If that's your stance, I'd suggest takin' it to AfD. Here really isn't the place. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to but I'm confident that I could defend the article at Afd. ~ Eóin (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Merge 'dem histories. No reason not to. I wonder if these are supposed to be automatic? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge histories. Even if the new article fails AFD, it would be best to have the histories all in one place; in the future, the guy might become more notable, and it's best to have all prior articles kept kind of organized for future article composition. -Pete (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment There is no reason to restore the history; the new article was written from scratch. There was no cut and paste move, hence no histories to be merged. Deleted version can be given upon request, here is not the place. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nicholas Winset (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The proposed deletion process is intended to be used to effectuate uncontroversial deletions, not as a means by which to bypass the AFD process and unilaterally destroy articles, consensus be darned. The deletion of Nicholas Winset is highly problematic in this respect: not only was the article previously retained pursuant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Winset, the proposed deletion notices were actually removed from the article by myself, Shell Kinney, Legotech, and Snigbrook. Nonetheless, simply by edit warring the proposed deletion notice back onto the article, 72.74.23.185 and 71.162.84.79 were able to get the article deleted due to an "Expired PROD". John254 13:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Now, if the prod is indeed expired, it means that in the five days (or more, in some cases) after the prod tag was posted atop the article, not a single editor saw the article and removed the tag to indicate disagreement with the premise of the prod (the author of the prodded article is requested not to remove the tag due to WP:COI implications, but the author could just as easily have asked another editor to check the article to see if the prod nomination is valid). The citation of WP:AfD is really a red herring because consensus can change - some articles have been to AfD multiple times, and at least three times in the past two years, there were deletions after more than a dozen attempts. A suggestion: ask an admin to send you a copy of the last version of the article, set up a "sandbox" subpage in your user space, write a different version of the article (or it would be speedily deleted once it makes it back to the article space with the same name, and watch it like a hawk afterwards. Also, WP:3RR violations should be reported immediately, especially it's by IPs. For this discussion, Endorse deletion, but allow recreation on an editor's userpage for rewriting to address objections raised in AfD. DRV is a review of the deletion process, not another shot at arguing the AfD. B.Wind (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Additional notes: the AfD was closed as no consensus; the prod cited WP:COI concerns. These should be kept in mind if the door becomes open for recreation (or restoration) of the article. Closing admin Jerry's comments about close should also be taken under consideration here. B.Wind (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Deleted prods can be automatically restored on request, so i have done so. I am passing no judgment on the article. If people want to delete it, another AfD is the way to go. The AfD was back in January, so it could be sent now, but recent discussions of BLP should be kept in mind--our understanding of these has advanced in the last few months of intense debating. A prod notice once removed from an article cannot be put back--what's the point--if it needs a argument, it's for AfD. I'll look into that edit warring. B Wind, what you say above is perfectly right--but it applies to restoring speedys, not prods. Cf. WP:PROD.DGG (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Abba -ogg files (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

I wish to dispute adminstrator Nv8200p's deletion of the set of -ogg-files I provided to the ABBA singles discograpy some time ago. He first deleted two of them last night with the explanation in the history pages of Chiquitita and Angeleyes that they didn't have "Fair use rationale"'s - which I know for fact that they did. Every single detail was there. The administrator at that point gave me no warning or chance to explain or either amend the "Fair Use Rationale"'s. I therefore uploaded these two again. He then sent me the following message to my talk page:

Please do not reupload the deleted ABBA oggs or you will be blocked from editing. If you wish to contest the deletions at this point use WP:DRV. Thanks. -Nv8200p talk 23:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

He then went on to delete all the -oggfiles present in the ABBA singles discography. I question his motives for this action, so I would like to have all these reviewed.

Note: this is the second attempt within a week to have these specific images deleted by an adminstrator or an editor. I have uploaded a number of audio files before with the exact same "Fair Use Rationale" and none of those have ever been questioned - so why these?

The pages concerned are as follows: When All Is Said and Done (song) Waterloo (song)‎ Voulez-Vous (song)‎ Under Attack‎ The Winner Takes It All‎ The Visitors (song)‎ The Name of the Game‎ The Day Before You Came‎ Thank You for the Music‎ Take a Chance on Me Super Trouper (song)‎ Summer Night City‎ So Long (song)‎ SOS (ABBA song)‎ Ring Ring (song)‎ People Need Love‎ One of Us (ABBA song)‎ Money, Money, Money‎ Mamma Mia (song)‎ Love Isn't Easy (But It Sure Is Hard Enough) Knowing Me, Knowing You‎ I Have a Dream (song)‎ I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do‎ Honey, Honey‎ Head over Heels (ABBA song)‎ He Is Your Brother‎ Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! (A Man After Midnight)‎ Fernando (song)‎ Eagle (song)‎ Does Your Mother Know‎ Dancing Queen‎ Chiquitita Angeleyes

The images are as follows:

"Image:ABBA - When All Is Said And Done.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Waterloo.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Voulez-Vous.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Under Attack.ogg" "Image:ABBA - The Winner Takes It All.ogg" "Image:ABBA - The Visitors.ogg" "Image:ABBA - The Name of the Game.ogg" "Image:ABBA - The Day Before You Came.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Thank YoU For The Music.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Take a Chance on Me.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Super Trouper.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Summer Night City.ogg" "Image:ABBA - So Long.ogg" "Image:ABBA - SOS.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Ring Ring.ogg" "Image:ABBA - People Need Love.ogg" "Image:ABBA - One Of Us.ogg" "Image:ABBA - On And On And On.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Money, Money, Money.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Mamma Mia.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Love Isn't Easy.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Lay All Your Love On Me.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Knowing Me, Knowing You.ogg" "Image:ABBA - I Have A Dream.ogg" "Image:ABBA - I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Honey Honey.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Head Over Heels.ogg" "Image:ABBA - He is Your Brother.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Fernando.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Eagle.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Does Your Mother Know.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Dancing Queen.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Chiquitita.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Angeleyes.ogg"

Thanks in advance, Dreamer.se (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)dreamer.se

• Endorse deletion (from deleting admin) The oggs were nominated for deletion here and the uploader was warned of the nomination here. The uploader did not participate in the discussion and there was no disagreement with the nomination. In the history for Chiquitita and Angeleyes, I noted that I removed the media per the nomination at WP:IFD. The removal had nothing to do with the fair use rationale but is about WP:NFCC#3a. The oggs are not significant to the articles and 30+ of them in the aggregate does seem excessive fair use. -Nv8200p talk 14:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I'm afraid I have a few other questions you need to adress:

A) Could you please specify why these sound samples are of less importance to an article than one about some other group of the same notability - such as any of the other ten bestselling artists in the history of recorded music? As most people are aware of in sales ABBA are in that league. Like it or not. I have noted that several bands of much lesser notability have far more sound samples in their bios and discographies like this.

These sound samples may or may not be of less importance than others but the others were not part of this nomination for deletion. -Nv8200p talk 02:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

B) How much would you consider non-excessive; is it all or nothing? Why delete all? Are we to take it that a group like ABBA aren't allowed any sound samples at all on Wikipedia? And re: "minimal usage" - are all sound samples by this particular band to be considered "insignificant" and "excessive"? If so why? I happened to notice that you deleted another sound sample by ABBA - uploaded by another user - at the same time.

A discussion at WP:IFD may have determined a consensus on how much is reasonable and which to keep, but there was no discussion, and since I know very little about ABBA, and the samples all seemed gratuitous to the articles, I opted to delete them all. If I deleted a sound sample that was not part of the nomination, that was a mistake. Let me know what it is and I can see if I can restore it. -Nv8200p talk 02:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

C) When was the decision taken to delete all of these - who endorsed your actions? While there may not have been any argument about the deletion - was there a consensus behind that decision? Was there an active decision taken by any of the editors or adminstrators involved? Did they inform me of this? Can anyone please show me that discussion and when that decision was taken?

No one has to endorse an admins action. With no dissenting discussion on the nomination, the course of action has been to uphold the nomination, unless the nomination violates policy. You were informed of the possibility of deletion here. No discussion is required to be present for an admin to close a nomination at WP:IFD. -Nv8200p talk 02:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Futhermore; I'd hate to think that the personal opinion of an editor or an adminstrator on a specific topic - or even a specific user - clouds his or her judgment when taking a decision like this.....

There was no opinion needed here. The action was pretty much procedural. -Nv8200p talk 02:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks in advance,

Dreamer.se (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)dreamer.se

• Endorse deletion. Everything appears to be in order here. The sound files were listed at IfD, the nomination appears to be perfectly valid and was unopposed, and the uploader was notified. Dreamer.se was active on Wikipedia for the full duration of the IfD (April 8 - April 26) and had ample time to respond, yet seemingly took no action until now. PC78 (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. Deletion procedure was followed correctly. Sandstein (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse - First, Dreamer.se, please remember to AGF. Accusing the deleter of bias is not a good way to start. Second, the IfD was uncontested for two weeks. On IfD, (which is very low-traffic), that is considered consensus to delete. Finally, yes, you were notified. See the History of your talk page. -- Kesh (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. There's no policy-based reason to overturn the deletion. The deletion process was followed to the letter. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Magic: The Gathering keywords (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I withdraw my nomination for DRV; I believe the article's subject matter is notable and worthy of an article, but I think without a version of the article which demonstrates this, no one is going to (or should, for that matter) believe me, and there was nothing procedurally incorrect about the deletion. I will work on the article in userspace and, once I come up with an article which demonstrates its appropriateness, I'll submit it, but until then, I'm going to let sleeping dogs lie. Thanks to User:Sandstein for his clarification of the purpose of DRVs and improving my comprehension of how Wikipedia works. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure you can withdraw at this point, or rather it won't do anything special. There are people who agree with your original proposal, and to close early, there needs to be a unanimous decision. --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I cuncur, the closure was incorrect as the discussionw as really a "no consensus" if not "keep" and so you were entirely correct to bring it here. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Subject was deleted on the basis of failing notability. However, the topic was notable, but unfortuantely I didn't even notice it was up for deletion until after it was gone. While the page, if my recollection is correct, heavily referenced WotC's website, the reality is that there is a great deal of commentary on keywords in independent articles. In particular, sites like The Dojo, Star City Games, and other magic strategy and commentary sites have in the past and continue to provide commentary and articles on Magic: The Gathering keywords. The Magic community is large and vibrant, and I daresay keywords like Storm are far more notable than Aerodactyl. If the page was deemed unsalvagable, I would be more than happy to start it over from scratch and do a better job of establishing notability via a variety of sources, and get some help on it from other people who are knowledgable about various good secondary sources other than Wizards of the Coast. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn. I don't believe that the closing reflects consensus. I participated in the discussion, so I believe that the article should be kept, but the discussion seems to tend more towards no consensus if not keep. The keep arguements are just as strong as the delete ones, and rebutted a few of the stronger delete arguements (namely that it fails WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE). I've also fixed the AfD link above and notified the deleting admin. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse closure as deleting admin. Notability was not an issue, but most "delete" opinions argued that this level of detail in covering a game violates WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE. This is a position I do not entirely agree with (see my closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic: The Gathering rules (2nd nomination)), but it is defensible on the basis of applicable policy and precedent. On the other hand, most "keep" opinions were weak: Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles posted the same template-style "keep" rationale that he seems to use for nearly every recent AfD, while 24.125.236.215, Ndhuang and Gary King made only WP:ATA arguments. Taking this into account, the consensus was to delete the article. Sandstein (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • For anyone interested in the diversity and reasonability of my arguments in AfDs, please see User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse...why doesn't anyone ever tell me about these things? Anyways, the closure was proper, I think the admin made two good and tough calls on these articles (this and the rules one). I've begun the process of transferring it to Magic Wikia here, and Sandstein has userfied it for me if anyone wants to help (or heck, rewrite or merge it...it should be transwikied regardless). --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus. Like Lifebaka, I don't believe that there was a consensus to delete the subject. I think it was no consensus at worst and quite possibly an outright keep; most of the deletion rationales were successfully rebutted, and with that gone, there wasn't much of a reason to delete it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Clear consensus when judged against policy and not headcount. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse per Spartaz. The "Keep" votes convince me that it's probably a useful resource, but that is not the same as saying it's a Wikipedia-worthy resource. I would encourage the article's proponents to pursue publication elsewhere, and list it as an external link where relevant on Wikipedia. -Pete (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Having trouble following all the discussion below, but the level of detail makes me wonder if relist might be the best approach. -Pete (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • So am I, and I'm involved. He's just repeating the same irrelevant stuff over and over and trying to give off the appearance he's saying something important. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, I just keep seeing the same irrelevant stuff repeated as an appearance of saying something important in favor of endorsement, when clearly there was no consensus to delete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn as no consensus or relist. The keep stances were numerous and convincing enough to have been more than just votes and a sufficient challenge to those arguing to delete. Most of the delete opinions were weak, i.e. the same template-style "delete" rationales you see for nearly every recent AfD, while Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, Ndhuang, ΖαππερΝαππερ, 24.125.236.215, and lifebaka all made strong keep arguments based on policy and precedent. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Such as what, might I ask? I remember your solution was using a source (MtG Encyclopedia) that didn't actually discuss the topic at hand. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "Such as what" what? I am not sure what you are asking. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm looking for those "strong keep arguments based on policy and precedent". Most of the keep votes I saw pretty much amount to "I like it and it's useful, plus we have other similar things". I like it too, and it is useful, but that's not a reason to keep. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, I cited two: Wikipedia:Lists (disrciminate, organized, and verifiable) and Wikipedia:Five pillars (consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Magic The Gathering of which there are multiple published versions. The deletes by contrast, focused on claiming it was a game guide, i.e. the only policy or guidelines really cited as a reason to delete was NOT, although a list of terms is hardly a "how to". By contrast, I offerred both a guideline and a policy page as reasons for keeping. And even those suggesting to deletes said, "This genuinely useful," "very useful list to people who actually play the game," etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
          • It is not verifiable under WP:V, there were no third party sources. And I'm not seeing how the Five Pillars apply at all, or how Wikipedia is a specialized encyclopedia of Magic: the Gathering (the MtG Encyclopedia, for the record, isn't an encyclopedia in the sense Wikipedia is. It's a visual listing of cards in particular sets and a brief explanation of some of them. The different editions are simply for each new group of sets, it is not multiple published versions of the same info). And neither help explain how this content is appropriate for Wikipeida. Yes, it's useful, but several useful things are not on Wikipedia. --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Per Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state, the fact that editors have requested userfication in this DRV suggests that sources can be found and looking at the deleted article, there appears to be sixteen references, so it's okay if some are primary sources, but my sense is that secondary sources at least potentially exist. The Five pillars absolutely apply in that Magic the Gathering is a franchise that has resulted in multiple specialized encyclopedias, some first person, others not. If per the First pillar, Wikipedia is not just a general encyclopedia, but also specialized encyclopedia than it is reasonable that we include content likely covered in [http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Magic+the+Gathering+encyclopedia multiple (I think over 20) different published specialized encyclopedias. If nothing else, I see no reason why not to at least restore the contribution history and then redirect to another Magic the Gathering page until additional sources can be added. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
              • ...I don't think you get it. Oh well. For the record, the only person I've seen request a userfy is myself, it has been userfied, and I did invite anyone who wanted to work on it to step up and do so. Nobody so far has taken my offer. --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
                • In this edit, another editor writes about working on the article in userspace. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: Template:MTGkeywordsTOC was speedied as a G6 since it's no longer used. If this is closed as overturn, this should be restored as well. Thanks. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: I've finished transwiking and marked the userfied version for deletion. If anyone wants to pick it up so they can work on it, they have 5 days. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn as no consensus Personally, I disagree with every delete comment which regarded the article as a game guide. WP:GAMEGUIDE (or WP:NOT#HOWTO) is against the existence of articles seeking to tell the readers how to win the game, not articles that give informative and encyclopedic materials about technical terms (which in fact help the readers better understand other articles about this subject on Wikipedia). This I see is not a widely-held opinion, as quite a number of delete voters passed the article off as a game guide in a rather affirmative tone. It should be noted, however, that the keep voters also provided strong arguments with explicit explanations why they thought the article wasn't a game guide (as opposed to the brusque and unexplained "delete - this is a gameguide not suitable for Wikipedia" type of comments). In cases where good arguments are presented by both sides (as I think this one is), and no side significantly outnumbers the other, debates should be closed as no-consensus. FWIW, the first AfD showed a long and quality discussion which resulted in "No consensus that this fails WP:NOT". While consensus (or the lack thereof) can change, it only changes with good reasons, and I don't see any delete arguments in the second AfD that sufficiently refuted keep arguments in the prior one.--PeaceNT (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the Gameguide argument, but it's not what I brought the AFD on. My concerns were lack of outside notability, no independent sources (and the unlikelihood of ever being any), and the unencyclopedic nature of the article. --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and close a no consensus, per the above. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus and optionally relist. Gameguide should be interpreted narrowly, exactly as Satsui specifies, and I wouldnt in the least assume the unlikelihood of new sources--books keep getting published on game, new and not so new. DGG (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • On the game, sure. On the keywords? --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)